Intel Core i5-4460S vs Intel Core i5-760 Comparison

The Intel Core i5-760 and the Intel Core i5-4460S are both quad-core, four-thread desktop processors from Intel, yet they belong to different architectural eras. The i5-760 is a Lynnfield part based on the 45 nm Nehalem architecture, while the i5-4460S is a Haswell part built on a 22 nm process. Despite the older design, benchmark data shows the i5-760 consistently outperforms the i5-4460S across all tested Cinebench workloads, with deltas ranging from 16.1% to 17.1%. The i5-4460S, however, offers a lower thermal design power (65 W versus 95 W), a newer PCIe generation, and integrated graphics, which the i5-760 lacks entirely.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core i5-760 has an average benchmark score of 1337, while the Intel Core i5-4460S scores 1330. The difference is 0.5% in favor of the i5-760.

Q: How do the two CPUs compare in multi-core Cinebench R23 performance?

A: In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the i5-760 scores 4624, which is 16.9% higher than the i5-4460S's score of 3955.

Q: Does the i5-4460S have integrated graphics?

A: Yes, the i5-4460S includes Intel HD 4600 integrated graphics. The i5-760 has no integrated graphics listed.

Q: What is the thermal design power difference between the two?

A: The i5-760 has a TDP of 95 W, while the i5-4460S has a TDP of 65 W, making the i5-4460S the more power-efficient part.

Q: Which CPU supports a newer PCIe generation?

A: The i5-4460S supports PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes (CPU only), whereas the i5-760 supports PCIe Gen 2 with 16 lanes (CPU only).

Q: What is the launch MSRP of the i5-4460S?

A: The launch MSRP of the Intel Core i5-4460S is $182.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two processors is substantial. The Intel Core i5-760 is built on Intel's Nehalem architecture with the Lynnfield codename, manufactured on a 45 nm process node. It contains 774 million transistors on a die size of 296 mm². The i5-4460S, in contrast, is based on the Haswell architecture with the same Haswell codename, using a 22 nm process node. This newer process allows the i5-4460S to pack 1,400 million transistors into a smaller 177 mm² die.

Both CPUs feature four cores and four threads, with identical L1 and L2 cache structures: 64 KB per core and 256 KB per core, respectively. The shared L3 cache differs, however, with the i5-760 offering 8 MB shared, while the i5-4460S provides 6 MB shared. Memory support is DDR3 dual-channel for both, but the i5-4460S lists a memory bandwidth of 25.6 GB/s, a figure not provided for the i5-760. Neither supports ECC memory, and both have a locked multiplier.

The sockets are incompatible: the i5-760 uses Intel Socket 1156, while the i5-4460S uses Intel Socket 1150. The i5-4460S also adds integrated graphics (Intel HD 4600) and PCIe Gen 3 support, whereas the i5-760 is limited to PCIe Gen 2. Both are classified as end-of-life desktop parts, with the i5-760 released in July 2010 and the i5-4460S released in May 2014.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark results are unambiguous: the Intel Core i5-760 wins all six head-to-head comparisons, with a total wins tally of 6 versus 0 for the i5-4460S. The largest margin comes in Cinebench R15 multi-core, where the i5-760 scores 466 against 398, a 17.1% advantage. The smallest margin is also substantial: 16.1% in Cinebench R15 single-core, with scores of 65 and 56.

In Cinebench R20, the i5-760 leads by 16.9% in multi-core (1942 versus 1661) and 16.7% in single-core (273 versus 234). The pattern continues in Cinebench R23, where the i5-760 achieves 4624 in multi-core versus 3955, a 16.9% delta, and 652 in single-core versus 558, a 16.8% delta. These consistent margins across different Cinebench versions indicate a uniform performance advantage for the older Nehalem part in CPU-bound rendering workloads.

The i5-760's average benchmark score of 1337 places it just 0.2% below the Intel Core i5-4590T (1340) and 0.8% below the Intel Core i5-4670 (1347) among its nearest rivals. Meanwhile, the i5-4460S's average score of 1330 sits 0.1% above the Intel Core i5-2500K (1329) and 0.7% above both the Intel Celeron G6900T and G6900E (both 1321). In direct comparison, the i5-760 is 0.5% ahead of the i5-4460S in average score.

Specification Differences

The two processors diverge on several key specifications. The base clock differs: the i5-760 runs at 2.80 GHz, while the i5-4460S runs at 2.90 GHz. Boost clocks also differ, with the i5-760 reaching 3.33 GHz and the i5-4460S reaching 3.40 GHz. Despite the lower clocks, the i5-760 still wins all benchmarks.

The TDP is a major differentiator: 95 W for the i5-760 versus 65 W for the i5-4460S. The process node also differs significantly, with 45 nm for the i5-760 and 22 nm for the i5-4460S. Transistor counts are 774 million versus 1,400 million, and die sizes are 296 mm² versus 177 mm², respectively.

Cache configurations differ in L3 size: 8 MB shared for the i5-760 versus 6 MB shared for the i5-4460S. The memory bandwidth is only listed for the i5-4460S at 25.6 GB/s. PCIe support is Gen 2 for the i5-760 and Gen 3 for the i5-4460S, both with 16 lanes (CPU only). The i5-4460S includes integrated graphics (Intel HD 4600), while the i5-760 has none. Sockets are incompatible (1156 versus 1150), and the release dates are about four years apart. The launch MSRP for the i5-4460S is $182, while no launch MSRP is listed for the i5-760.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i5-760 wins decisively in raw compute benchmarks. It is ahead by 16.1% to 17.1% across all Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 tests, both single-core and multi-core. This makes it the clear choice for applications that rely heavily on CPU rendering, such as 3D modeling, video encoding, or any workload that scales with Cinebench-like performance. Its larger 8 MB L3 cache likely contributes to this advantage, as does its higher single-core performance despite lower clock speeds.

The Intel Core i5-4460S wins in efficiency and platform features. Its 65 W TDP is significantly lower than the i5-760's 95 W, making it better suited for compact or thermally constrained systems. It also supports PCIe Gen 3, which offers double the bandwidth of Gen 2 for compatible graphics cards and NVMe storage. The inclusion of Intel HD 4600 graphics means the i5-4460S can power a display without a discrete GPU, a capability the i5-760 lacks entirely. Its newer 22 nm process and higher transistor count suggest better power efficiency per unit of work, even if raw performance is lower.

In terms of average benchmark score, the i5-760 edges ahead with 1337 versus 1330, a 0.5% margin. Both CPUs sit at the 35th percentile among all CPUs, indicating similar overall standing in the broader market. The i5-760's nearest rival list includes the i5-4460S itself, with a delta of 0.5%, while the i5-4460S's nearest rivals include the i5-760 at -0.5%, meaning the competition is extremely tight in aggregate metrics.

The Verdict

The data is clear: the Intel Core i5-760 outperforms the Intel Core i5-4460S in every benchmark recorded. With a 17.1% lead in Cinebench R15 multi-core and a 16.8% lead in Cinebench R23 single-core, the older Nehalem part is unequivocally faster for CPU-intensive tasks. Its 8 MB L3 cache and higher single-core scores compensate for its lower base and boost clocks. Users prioritizing raw rendering performance should choose the i5-760, as it delivers a consistent 16-17% advantage across all tested workloads.

The Intel Core i5-4460S, however, is not without merit. Its 65 W TDP makes it a better fit for power-sensitive builds, and its integrated Intel HD 4600 graphics eliminate the need for a discrete GPU in basic systems. The newer PCIe Gen 3 interface provides better bandwidth for modern peripherals, and the 22 nm process suggests superior energy efficiency. For users who value lower power consumption, integrated graphics, or a more modern platform, the i5-4460S is the logical pick, despite its lower benchmark scores. The average benchmark scores are nearly identical (1337 versus 1330), and both sit at the 35th percentile, so the choice ultimately hinges on whether performance or platform features matter more.